Civetone seems to be a common synthetic replacement for natural civet musk. The actual, natural civet musk contains other molecules including civetol in addition to civetone. Considering that molecules with an alcohol group on the 3 carbon seem to be more 'social' than those with a ketone group, it seems like civetol would be an interesting phero. ... thoughts?

I'm debating either trying to convert some civetone with NaBH4, or seeing if it's possible to buy a small amount.

Bump.....You got me curious to know what this can do. Not an expert, but I am curious to know if anyone has tried this before in an experiment.

(10-19-2016 5:52 PM)wiserd Wrote:  Civetone seems to be a common synthetic replacement for natural civet musk. The actual, natural civet musk contains other molecules including civetol in addition to civetone. Considering that molecules with an alcohol group on the 3 carbon seem to be more 'social' than those with a ketone group, it seems like civetol would be an interesting phero. ... thoughts?

I'm debating either trying to convert some civetone with NaBH4, or seeing if it's possible to buy a small amount.

You better than anyone should know that synthetics sometimes do not compare to natural scents. Improving on nature?

Natural Civet mainly contains Civetone (a cyclic ketone with a chain of 17 carbon atoms), civetol, indole, ethylamine, propylamine and a few unidentified free acids.

Also....there's this: http://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/style...ances1.htm

"Despite their unmatched staying power and variety, synthetic scents continue to come under fire for their potential health hazards. Many of these fragrances contain harmful chemicals like phthalates, which are known hormone disrupters and carcinogens.

Even worse, laws in the U.S. specifically exempt fragrances from labeling requirements, making it tough for consumers to know what they're up against. The FDA considers fragrances a trade secret, so the ingredients don't have to be listed on the label."

(10-21-2016 1:19 PM)Paradox Wrote:  You better than anyone should know that synthetics sometimes do not compare to natural scents. Improving on nature?

Natural Civet mainly contains Civetone (a cyclic ketone with a chain of 17 carbon atoms), civetol, indole, ethylamine, propylamine and a few unidentified free acids.

Also....there's this: http://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/style...ances1.htm

"Despite their unmatched staying power and variety, synthetic scents continue to come under fire for their potential health hazards. Many of these fragrances contain harmful chemicals like phthalates, which are known hormone disrupters and carcinogens.

Even worse, laws in the U.S. specifically exempt fragrances from labeling requirements, making it tough for consumers to know what they're up against. The FDA considers fragrances a trade secret, so the ingredients don't have to be listed on the label."

I second this. Natural animal musks serve as an excellent adjunct to synthetic pheromones, but it's often the novel chemicals not found in nature (or those found in negligible quantities) that are capable of producing the most desirable effects. Although the steroidal compounds contained in civet or deer musk may show great potential, the non-steroidal aromachemicals (as this would appear to be - correct me if I'm wrong) rarely show any real promise in the pheromonal realm. In terms of scent, civetol will always fall flat compared with full-spectrum civet.

(10-21-2016 4:55 PM)Ekscentra Wrote:  I second this. Natural animal musks serve as an excellent adjunct to synthetic pheromones, but it's often the novel chemicals not found in nature (or those found in negligible quantities) that are capable of producing the most desirable effects. Although the steroidal compounds contained in civet or deer musk may show great potential, the non-steroidal aromachemicals (as this would appear to be - correct me if I'm wrong) rarely show any real promise in the pheromonal realm. In terms of scent, civetol will always fall flat compared with full-spectrum civet.

Technically, the cyclic keytones civetone and muscone are not steroids, but they're capable of assuming a steroidal conformation(though not all parts at once) I suspect that's relevant.

I'm not the first to say this.

See P. 147

(10-21-2016 1:19 PM)Paradox Wrote:  You better than anyone should know that synthetics sometimes do not compare to natural scents. Improving on nature?

Natural Civet mainly contains Civetone (a cyclic ketone with a chain of 17 carbon atoms), civetol, indole, ethylamine, propylamine and a few unidentified free acids.

Also....there's this: http://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/style...ances1.htm

"Despite their unmatched staying power and variety, synthetic scents continue to come under fire for their potential health hazards. Many of these fragrances contain harmful chemicals like phthalates, which are known hormone disrupters and carcinogens.

Even worse, laws in the U.S. specifically exempt fragrances from labeling requirements, making it tough for consumers to know what they're up against. The FDA considers fragrances a trade secret, so the ingredients don't have to be listed on the label."

Civetone, Muscone and many other of the state-of-the art synthetic musks do not contain any phtalates. Aromachemicals, when produced by rliable sources, are highly purified substaces.
Phtalates in fragances (read: mixes of aromachemicals) might contain phtalates as solubilizers etc. but, at least in the EU, those are banned and mainstream products in the stores do not contain those. So Paradox interjection is irrelevant here.

I'm further convinced that the natural occuring steroids in deer musk, civet, castoreum etc. are an extremely important and often overlooked part of their effects and actions.
That's in part du to the industry not allowed to use many of those steroids in consumer products and therefore ditched looking into it.

I've read quite some papers and literature recently about the steroidal conformation that the fragrant components of musks can turn into -
apparently wiserd as well -and my conclusion is, and some recent studies indicate as much, that this mechanism is there to modify the odours of the steroids. Stuff like Muscenone etc. modulate scent-receptor activity and reactivity and can allow for more steroids to be tolerated by exposed individuals - if that is a mechanism specifically to mating or territorial behaviour i'm not sure yet, but it's clear to me the gragrant components are as crucial to the status and mating success of the animals as are the steroids. It's complex.
The research indicating that to me were performed with synthetic single aromachemicals simila to muscenone, civetone etc. .. so the natual compound seems not to be necessarily needed. You can achieve much higher concentrations with sxnthetics and maybe even achieve results not possible in nature, so Paradox is wrong on this one as well

(10-22-2016 2:48 AM)GoergeFocky Wrote:  Civetone, Muscone and many other of the state-of-the art synthetic musks do not contain any phtalates. Aromachemicals, when produced by rliable sources, are highly purified substaces.
Phtalates in fragances (read: mixes of aromachemicals) might contain phtalates as solubilizers etc. but, at least in the EU, those are banned and mainstream products in the stores do not contain those. So Paradox interjection is irrelevant here.

If only you knew what you were talking about.

Once again, you are wrong: https://secured-static.greenpeace.org/in...l-musk.pdf

“The results show that phthalates and artificial musks are found in virtually every perfume that was tested.”

I’m not going to quote the whole article here. Read it yourself. You never know what you are talking about. You never do research and are always wrong.

You never do research and are always wrong.

Read up on the subject before you post.

(09-28-2015 7:57 AM)GoergeFocky Wrote:  Ive learned a lot in my 10+ years of medical studies and occupation.

You are supposed to be a doctor? Researcher?

Have you contributed anything to this forum? Where are your reviews? Pheromone test results? I see nothing from you.

Y'all got me interested. (spent some time in the South lol) So I started reading up and researching. Valid dangers are not easy to find. This is good.

The FDA -
This is a relatively current, interesting and informative article by The FDA:http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIng...128250.htm

Excerpt
________________________________________​______________________
Phthalates and human health

It's not clear what effect, if any, phthalates have on human health. An expert panel convened from 1998 to 2000 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute for Environmental Safety and Health, concluded that reproductive risks from exposure to phthalates were minimal to negligible in most cases.

However

FDA's role

Under the law, cosmetic products and ingredients, with the exception of color additives, are not subject to FDA approval before they go on the market. FDA can take action against unsafe cosmetics that are on the market, but only if we have dependable scientific evidence showing that a product or ingredient is unsafe for consumers under labeled or customary conditions of use.
At the present time, FDA does not have evidence that phthalates as used in cosmetics pose a safety risk. If we determine that a health hazard exists, we will advise the industry and the public, and will take action within the scope of our authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in protecting the health and welfare of consumers.
________________________________________​___________________

They do provide a chart with the list of items (lot's of stuff from Walmart), but mentioned that these products were reformulated after the survey in 2010.

I did some additional reading, as you guys got me interested. Then I read some more.

I encourage anyone interested in synthetic musks to do plenty of reading and make actionable decisions afterwards. Take my opinions below with a grain of salt.

Me:
I'm not particulaly worried about Phthalates in an acute toxicity and deadly exposure level. Solid and updated information is not easy to find on dangers. Most of the "disconcerting" blogs such as this one: http://ourlittleplace.com/health-risks-o...e-products are really using outdated information dating back decades or more. I've used most of these items listed as they are ubiquitous. You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but this couple's fucking website is cheesy. I can't take their agenda seriously. Just look at the family pictures....

Synthetic musks
I think synthetic musks pose virtually no risk if purchased from a reputable supplier and if you were using individual ingredients in your own fragrance mixes. It's bad quality finished cosmetics and fragrances designed by poor standards and cheapos that contain hidden things, (not the artificial musks included) that might concern me, but not too much......The alcohol that I drank, military tours, bacon shake at Denny's , cigarettes I smoked when younger, those threesomes, and my daily vehicular commute to the office pose more risk to my health than 2 sprays of some cover scents with parts per million of synthetic musk absorption.

In the end, to each his own. Use common sense. Don't buy some yellow jungle juice from a shady guy in a New York city dark alley he coined "Manscumtone" attar.

This topic:
This is good thread. I think every discussion can be valuable regardless of who agrees with this or that. I'm now more educated than a few hours ago.

I have to thank you guys.

Phthalates

https://raypeatforum.com/community/threa...ost-120450

Second paragraph from the top.........

@TheLaw

Good current article for additional information, but nothing conclusively harmful. Someone provide a real good U.S. based research organization...an..article from 2015 or greater for me to consider my standpoint.

Keyitems and patterns found....I mean... often found: "Inconclusive, Needs more study, Found in Rats, Could be found, Potentially..." All these things...

Plastacisers.....all these things...and more things....

People used dimethylpolysiloxane which is listed in the beloved AM, sprayed daily, used daily, and in many, many other cosmetics by many consumer products. Hell, fast food put this silly putty as ingredients in bread. Subway? They got busted. I'm just pointing out that their are a lot of things to to find if you really want to live in the modern world.

If I do a risk assessment for my own well being. Synthetic musks would not even register as a risk for me. Now, if we are talking about fragrance finished products...that's a more suitable discussion on danger. Something with multiple non disclosed ingredients, carefully selected as a "fragrance" loophole to avoid inspection from the FDA.

I promise you. I won't drink civetol/civetone or any other synthetic must ingredient at all.

I'm sorry, most of these research articles are glibs from European studies. Just saying.... Special interests groups and agendas everywhere and a determined slight resentment towards the US way of life. When people are overweight, 9 out of 10 times, I don't blame the plastic spoon.

Anyhoo. I'm not buying the danger, danger at this point in time. Sell. I'll talk to some of my known 'peoples' at the University just to see where this debate lies as well.